Honda has released an image of the production version of their Prius-fighter, the Insight hybrid.
Some may say it's a Prius rip-off, and that's cool. I don't think so. Regardless it's still better looking than the Prius. I predict Honda has another hit on their hands here--if they can convince people to buy cars once again.
Ford and GM may have paired up down in the nation's capitol, but in the showrooms they're going at it as if there's no tomorrow--hey, maybe there won't be a tomorrow for one or both! At any rate, the new Mustang base model starts at $21,845, whereas the base Camaro starts at $22,995.
It also just undercuts the new Dodge Challenger, which starts at $21,995. Winner Ford.
While many, myself included, thought it would be announced that Pontiac would disappear, that apparently is not the case. GM announced yesterday that, in their restructuring, Pontiac would become a niche brand. Mark Phelan of the Detroit Free Press, agrees. Might the General and Phelan be correct?
When was the last time that you saw Ford having a better month than either Toyota or Honda, at least in terms of sales loss percentages?
"I've been in the industry nearly 28 years and never have seen anything even remotely close to this," states Mark LaNeve, GM's North American vice president of sales. "It's breathtaking."
It just gets uglier every month, and one has to wonder how much worse will it get? Oh wait... Domestic Motors and Congress have yet to do their second Doe-See-Doe. It could get much worse folks...
No, Pontiac did not make a "Super Duty" pickup, in the Ford mold. Rather, back in '63 they built a very few (as in 6), very special drag-racing Tempest Le Mans specials that were labeled "Super Duty."
So how how much this car go for? $226K. What's more the car was junker that listed for $500. To top it off--the car was missing the engine, transmission and keys!
Alan Mulally will be driving a Ford Escape hybrid, and GM's Rick Wagoner will be driving a Chevy Malibu hybrid to Washington for Round Two of their epic sales pitch to drum up resources from Congress. No word yet on how Chrysler's Bob Nardelli or the UAW's Ron Gettelfinger will be arriving.
Karl has a good read up on a new Edmunds.com section called Car Audio and Electronics Center; which, as you might suspect, is geared towards the techie side of cars.
I'm in full agreement with Karl in that there are no really bad new cars out there. Even the worst car is really not that bad, especially when compared to vehicles that have come before (K-car, anyone?). That being said, what makes a customer choose one good car from another good car?
Karl states that once the practical aspects have been met (gas mileage, safety, price, comfort, etc.), it boils down to styling, ergonomics and features. Again, we're in complete agreement here. It should also be noted that with each new model announcement, the audio/infotainment aspect gets even more complex and confusing. Hopefully this new Edmunds section will help sort all this out, and make choosing the right vehicle just a bit easier.
If you think that our domestic auto industries problems are a uniquely "American" problem, think again. Failing automakers are a global problem, as is illustrated by the above graphic from The Detroit News.
Wendelin Wiedeking, chief executive of Porsche, said it could be only a matter of time before hedge funds took majority control of one of the US car manufacturers that had inflicted damage on themselves with ruinous discounts and hugely subsidised leasing rates. Cerberus, who owns Chrysler, is a hedge fund; so we know what that means...
Wiedeking also stated at Porsche's annual press conference: "We need banks to give credit, not just talk about credit ratings but start real actual lending to companies. These rules are choking us today.
"Stabilisation of the financial system has to take place rather than banks shifting hundreds of billions of euros to the European Central Bank to earn interest. They should be injecting money so healthy companies survive."
The following is a list of vehicle makers with consumer track events. Some are free, while others cost some money. Please visit the link provided for details.
This semi-regular column is written (in his own blood) by an automotive sage and noted malcontent, known as The Mechanic. Mercilessly beaten as a child with rolled-up back issues of old car magazines, our free-spoken hero developed a unique "for your own good" take on cars and the auto industry, along with an unfortunate habit of setting himself ablaze. Later, after a distinguished career as an automotive journalist and magazine editor, he cast off the reins of his musty oppressors, carved out his superego with a plastic spork and became The Mechanic.
I'm bummed out about the new Mustang. After all the teaser shots, after all the hype and the secrecy, it hit my eyes with a thud. I stood there at the Los Angeles auto show staring at it, wondering, "That's the new 2010 Ford Mustang. That? What's so new?"
Of course, I was surrounded by hundreds of members of the easily impressed media, a throng that sings for any car revealed alongside a free buffet, and few had anything but praise for the new design. They couldn't even put down the free chicken fingers long enough to call Ford on the new Mustang's carryover powertrains, including a 4.0 V6 rated at a limp 210 horsepower. That's 90 ponies less than the Camaro's 3.6-liter V6.
Maybe I'm to blame. Maybe my expectations were too high. I was expecting something great. An inspired answer to the Dodge Challenger and coming Chevy Camaro. But Ford, strapped for cash as it is, punted, choosing instead to toss a few new body panels and a revised dashboard on the existing Mustang, a car that made Bill Ford, Mark Fields and gang look pretty smart when they unveiled it five years ago.
In other words, they decided to shelf the Mustang's needed redesign, instead giving it a midcycle refresh. That means the Mustang is on a 10-year life cycle. A 10-YEAR LIFE CYCLE!!!! Think about that. It means this car will be around until 2015.
It's hard to blame them. Without question, the 2005-'09 Mustang has been a rare highlight during a dark time in Ford's history. It not only kicked off the retro muscle car trend Chevy and Dodge are just now catching up on, it has had the segment all to itself for essentially half a decade. No, it wasn't the perfect car, not even close, but when you're the only game in town, it's hard to look bad.
And the Mustang looked good. So good, it again became Ford's signature product, an example of the company's ability to do something right, just as it had in the 1960s with the original and again in the 1980s with the 5.0. For the past five years, the Ford Mustang, from the lowly V6 all the way up to the GT500 KR, has been a Ford to desire. The Ford to desire.
While Bill, Mark and, more recently, Alan have been in The Glass House screwing up the rest of the Ford lineup (OK, the Edge is pretty good), enthusiasts like us and car lovers all over the world have given them a chance to turn it around. A real chance. Why? Partly because of the Mustang. We all figure that if they can get that so right, well then, they're not so far gone. They can get it. They do get it. They can do this.
Trouble is, the 2010 Ford Mustang squashes all that. It's not that it doesn't look better, it just doesn't look better enough. Soon the hot coupe market will be flooded with new product: the Challenger, the Camaro, the BMW 1 Series, the Hyundai Genesis Coupe, the new Nissan 370Z. And the sad fact is that the 2010 Ford Mustang is not equipped to handle the coming flood of competition.
This game is cutthroat, and the new Mustang is about to be put down like a quarter-horse with a torn hammy and I'm not happy about it.
But why did this happen? Has five years of having the rear-wheel-drive coupe market all to itself lulled the giant Blue Oval to sleep? I don't think so. The lack of zip in the 2010 Ford Mustang is simply a result of Mulally and Company having other fish to fry. Things like a $2 stock price, a collapse of the profitable SUV market, developing a decent small car, begging the Washington democrats for cash, trying to get Ecoboost to market without looking foolish, launching the new F-150 cash cow, saving Lincoln, saving Mercury, and of course flying the company jet to Florida every week to visit family. Sorry, Mark. I couldn't resist.
My point is that the disappointing Mustang is much more a result of Ford's present economic state and not the incompetence of its management team. Then again, Ford's present economic state is certainly a result of the incompetence of its management team, so....
I just hope Ford and its iconic pony car are around long enough for the lackluster 2010 Mustang to have a successor. Maybe it will be great. -- The Mechanic, Inside Line Contributor
This Jet-Gate story is quickly becoming the Joe-the-Plumber side show of the auto industry collapse, as it just won't die. GM is now asking the FAA to bar public tracking of (their) corporate jets.
Seems like these guys just can't get a break. Fact of the matter is that corporate jets for large corporations, are a part of doing business, whether they're going bankrupt or not. Would it make more sense for these executives to fly steerage class, or drive to DC, or better still--hitchhike--to plead their case? I don't think so. Now they could certainly have jet-pooled, with all four flying on one corporate jet of their choosing.
Ford just revealed a new Ranger concept in Thailand called the Ranger Max. Assuming FoMoCo survives, and assuming the Ranger survives, might this hint at what the next-generation Ranger could be like?
Tuesday, December 2 will be D-Day for Detroit, as it could Determine their future, or lack-there-of, of the Detroit automakers.
Will their be enough meat on the plate that Domestic Motors will be serving up to Congress for them to Digest favorably? Will their restructuring plan for the auto industry be enough to convince the lawmakers that the big Detroit Three are indeed worth worth Defending with a financial Deal?
